Back to all available

Microencapsulation with lecithin and maltodextrin enhances the stability of ferric pyrophosphate

inorganic-chemistry-other
main-group-inorganic-chemistry

Abstract

Background: Iron supplementation is essential in managing iron deficiency anemia, but the stability of iron compounds significantly affects their efficacy. Ferric pyrophosphate (FePP), though commonly used, is prone to oxidative degradation. Microencapsulation with stabilizers such as lecithin and maltodextrin may improve its oxidative stability, yet comparative data between coated and uncoated FePP are limited.

Methods: This study compared the oxidative stability of uncoated FePP and microencapsulated SunActive™ Fe (coated with lecithin and maltodextrin). Samples were exposed to hydrogen peroxide (0.1%, 1%, 2%, and 3%) to induce oxidative stress. The reduction of ferric (Fe³⁺) to ferrous (Fe²⁺) iron was quantified using a colorimetric assay based on Fe²⁺–1,10-phenanthroline complex formation, measured spectrophotometrically at 510 nm across multiple time points up to 15 minutes.

Results: Uncoated FePP showed a rapid, concentration-dependent increase in Fe²⁺ levels, indicating high oxidative reactivity. In contrast, encapsulated SunActive™ Fe exhibited significantly lower Fe³⁺ → Fe²⁺ conversion across all peroxide concentrations and time points (p < 0.005). The reduced Fe²⁺ formation in the coated sample confirms that microencapsulation effectively protects ferric centers from peroxide-induced reduction.

Discussion: Microencapsulation with lecithin and maltodextrin enhances the oxidative stability of ferric pyrophosphate by restricting peroxide access and reducing redox cycling. These findings highlight the potential of encapsulation as a simple, cost-effective strategy to improve the stability, safety, and shelf life of iron supplements, particularly under oxidative storage conditions.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Inorganic Chemistry does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].